In continuation of what I said previously, we shall go into further details of the development of religious consciousness through the process of history. Every religion and every scripture proclaims that human beings have come from God. No religion accepts the Darwinian theory of the ascent of man from lower species. We have to consider why there is such a contradiction of opinions. Who is right, and who is wrong? Are we descending, or are we ascending? What is actually happening?

The method of deducing particulars from accepted universal propositions is called the deductive method. Religions accept that there is God. They need not have to prove the existence of God. If the existence of God itself is a question of argument, there will be no religion in the world. It is an indubitable hypothesis, a proposition taken for granted, once and for all times. Various religions have their own theories of the coming down of the human being from God Almighty. To take the example of the well-known Indian religions, the Supreme Being is described as having contemplated the potentials of a future creation. In the Rigveda there is a sukta, or a great hymn, called the Nasadiya Sukta. There was a potential, which looked like a universal darkness. This ubiquitous, all-pervading dark potential is supposed to be the concentrated will of God proposing to outline in His own mind the details of the creation yet to be.

This great declaration in the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda may be compared with the Big Bang theory of modern physicists. There was one indescribable point, the nucleus of the would-be expanding universe. That nucleus was not in space and not in time, because space and time had not yet been created. It was a bindu, as the Tantra Sastra tells us. It is a point, but it is not a geometrical point which requires a space in order to locate itself. This is a point which is neither logically conceivable nor geometrically describable; that is why philosophers tell us in an enigmatic manner that it is a centre which is everywhere, with circumference nowhere. It is as if the centre of a circle has become the circumference itself, and the whole circle is the centre only. Geometrically, from the Euclidian point of view, we cannot imagine such a circle. How can the periphery, the circumference, also be the centre? Therefore, this centre, which is the pre-Big Bang condition, is as indescribable and enigmatic as the dark potential of the would-be creative process presented before us by the Nasadiya Sukta in the tenth book of the Rigveda.

Surprising indeed is what comes out of this proposition. There was no space and time before the Big Bang took place; therefore, there was no distance of one thing from another. So we have come from a distanceless point, which means to say that even now, at this moment, when we appear to be far, far away—inconceivable light years of distance from that point—we are still sitting at that point only. We will be flabbergasted to think like this. Even at this moment, we are sitting at the very same point where we were before the Big Bang took place. If we go deep into this mystery, we will realise that creation is an illusion. Otherwise, how after millions of years of the developmental process of spatial expansion and incredible distance can we still be at the same point where we started? That means creation has not taken place. Even modern physics can confirm this, to its own chagrin, though creation is not its field of enquiry.

Āsīd idam tamobhūtam aprajñātam alakṣaṇam, apratarkyam avijñeyaṁ prasuptam iva sarvataḥ is the first verse of the Manusmriti. There was a darkness prevailing everywhere. The pre-Big Bang condition was darkness, we may say, because there was no sunlight at that time. Solar light manifested itself as a concentration of energy subsequent to the occurrence of the Big Bang, whereas prior to the occurrence of this Big Bang, there was an all-pervading, equally distributed energy, without any excess of concentration anywhere. When energy is equally distributed, it is all darkness. There is no light. If the heat and light of all the stars in all the solar systems everywhere become distributed throughout the cosmos, there will be no light.

Hence, there is a point in saying that before creation it was darkness, but it was darkness due to the excess of light. It was not really darkness. The light potential was so much that it could manifest itself as millions of shining suns and galaxies. We are accustomed to perceivable light which can be visible to the eyes. If the eyes cannot catch a particular vibration which is called light waves, we say there is no light. Even if there is light, the eyes cannot catch that frequency if it is too high.

Bhagavan Sri Krishna showed the Vishvarupa several times. The splash of light was such that hundreds and thousands of suns were rising, as it were, blinding the eyes of all people, and they saw darkness everywhere. Why go so far? Gaze at the Sun with open eyes for a second. We should not do this always, of course. I am just mentioning this as an illustration. If we look at the Sun, its brilliance impinges on the retina of the eyes; then afterwards, when we look anywhere, we see only pitch dark or dark spots. We will not see the light of the Sun; we will see darkness. Even if we gaze at the Sun for some time, the force of the energy waves impinging on our eyes will be so intense that the Sun may look dark. This means that our idea of darkness and light is sensorially oriented. Even if we behold the light of God, we will consider it to be pitch darkness.

This is a small comparison between the modern physical theory of the Big Bang and the indescribable, incredible consequences that follow from this wonderful discovery where the subsequent spatial expansion has not in any way contradicted the abolition of this distance which was prior to the Big Bang, making out thereby that we have never been born at all. We are still in the same place that we were before the Big Bang took place—which means that we are immortal. Neither were we born, nor can we die, because that centre cannot be born. The expanded universe is an illusory, indescribable, enigmatic phenomena which no human being can conceive. No human being can conceive it, because human beings are involved in the very process of this incredible manifestation.

Scriptures in India also have this doctrine. Brahman the Absolute condensed Itself into the point of a universal will of potentiality to outline the process of the would-be creative universe. Brahman becomes Ishvara; Ishvara becomes Hiranyagarbha; Hiranyagarbha becomes Virat. This is what the Vedanta doctrine tells us.

How this great Virat manifests Himself further is described in the Puranas, especially in the Third Skanda of the Srimad Bhagavata, which describes how Brahma created the world. This universal concrete manifestation known as the Virat divides itself, as it were, into a threefold appearance called adhyatma,adhibhuta, and adhidaiva—the universe of perception, the subjective perceiving centres, and the connecting link of divinity operating between the subjective side and the objective side. That is to say, if we are to see something outside, the outsideness of the thing that is to be perceived precludes our knowledge of there being such a thing at all. A thing that is totally outside us cannot be known by us. Therefore, on the one hand, in order to know anything, that thing must be outside us. Secondly, it should not be entirely outside us; there should be a connecting link. This connecting link is the Virat Himself, which links up the subjective side and the objective side.

According to the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana, Brahma concentrated himself in the form of creation. Brahma first created his sons, called the Kumaras: Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatana, Sanatkumara, and Sanatsujata. All mythology, all Puranas, and all scriptures describe processes of creation which we cannot fully understand. Brahma is supposed to have told the Kumaras, “Help me in further creation.” These Kumaras were brahmanisthas; they were united with the Supreme Being. They told Brahma, “We are not going to help you in creation. We are absorbed in the mighty Supreme Being.”

The Bhagavata Purana tells us that the Creator, Brahma, got annoyed. “My own sons are disobeying me.” His anger manifested itself as a dark spot between his eyebrows, but he could not cast that anger upon them because they were mighty children, centred in the Universal Absolute, so he held it. When we are raging with anger towards somebody who is stronger than us, we are unable to manifest it. It is like getting angry with an elephant. What is the use of being angry with it? We have to hold it in. But it cannot be held in; it has to come out. So Brahma released that anger outwardly, and a being spat out from it and roared. That roaring individual is called Rudra, who shouted, “Why did you bring me here? Give me work!” He was speaking like that because he was born of anger.

Brahma said, “Please create.” Then Rudra created demons, bhutas, demigods—all creatures which Brahma did not expect. So Brahma said, “Enough of this creation.” “Then give me a duty to perform!” Rudra spoke very violently because he was born of anger. Naturally, anything that is born of anger will behave in that manner.

Brahma said, “Please go to Kailash mountain and do meditation there. That is your duty now. Do not create anything.” Siva went, and even now he is meditating there. That chapter was over, but the creative process was not complete. Brahma failed with the Kumaras, and he also failed with Rudra. He then created nine Prajapatis—Daksha and others. Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Bhrigu, Vasishtha, Daksha, Narada. Ten people, beginning with Pulastya, Bhrigu and Vasishtha, and ending with Narada, were created. These nine Prajapatis, as they are called, are the progenitors of humanity. But they created celestials. Human beings were not created.

Then Brahma created the first man, just as we have it in the Bible that God created Adam, the first man, and Eve, the first woman. Just as Adam and Eve were practically inseparable from the stuff out of which they were made, so is the story in the Srimad Bhagavata. A being was created as a diminished, concentrated form of Brahma himself. He was Manu, the progenitor of humanity. He was the first man, we may say, and his consort was Shatarupa. Manu and Shatarupa correspond to Adam and Eve, and through them came the entire creation. This is one description found in the Puranas and the epics of India, making note thereby that we have come from the higher levels of reality, and we have not come from animals, plants and trees.

God is implanted in the heart of man. The human being is supposed to be the last creation. The first creation, of course, was Sanatkumara, etc; then came Rudra, then the Prajapatis, then Manu and Shatarupa and all the gods in heaven—angels, Indra, and others. Last was the human being. In the history of creation, human beings came last, not first.

Then, what about the Darwinian theory? Is it acceptable or not? He says something quite opposite. There is a point in that theory also. The scripture does not really contradict it really speaking, if it is properly understood.

In the Aitareya Upanishad, we have an answer to this question. The Supreme Being first created space and time. The vibrations set up in space and time condensed themselves into the potentials of the would-be five gross elements called space—akasha or sky, we may call it—then air, fire, water, and earth. These gross elements did not come out suddenly from the vibrations of space-time. Intermediary forces, called tanmatras in Sanskrit, known as the potentials of sabda, sparsa, rupa, rasa, and gandha—hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and smelling—were there. They were potential electrical forces, as it were, if at all we can make that comparison, which concentrated themselves, hardened themselves into the physical elements of earth, water, fire, air, and ether. Up to this level, we may say it is God’s creation. Īkṣaṇādi praveśāntā sṛṣṭi rīśena kalpitā, says Swami Vidyaranya in his Panchadasi: From the original conception of Ishvara, down to this lowest level of creation in the form of the earth plane, we should consider it as God’s creation. We have not created the earth, sky, air, etc.

Now, the answer comes as to why Darwin said what he did. There is also some truth in what he said. Here, we have to revert to the Taittiriya Upanishad. Tasmād vā etasmād ātmana ākāśas sambhūtaḥ: From that Universal Atman, space emanated. Space gave birth to air; air gave birth to heat and fire; fire gave birth to water; water gave birth to earth. Earth produced vegetables, plants, herbs—edibles of the organic kingdom. These, when consumed by individuals, became the substance of their bodies. Our physical body is the outcome of the food we eat. Pṛthivyā oṣadhayaḥ oṣadhĪbhyo annam, annāt puruṣaḥ: Foodstuff, including the water that we drink and anything that we take inside, becomes the stuff of this body. Consciousness gets merged in this body consciousness. The Supreme Consciousness, which descended gradually in lesser and lesser densities through space, air, etc., until it condensed itself into earth consciousness, became body consciousness when it was individualised. Individualised earth consciousness is the same as isolated individual consciousness. We have a fraction of earth consciousness, elemental consciousness.

Etebhyo bhῡtebhyaḥ samutthāya, tāny evānuvinaśyati, says Yajnavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: We rise out of the elements, and perish into them when we die. This is a very great subject, which is discussed in the Brahma Sutras. We have arisen out of the elements. Now comes Darwin. From the lowest potential of physical elements, there emerged the potential of individualised life. It is not the cosmic life which the scriptures speak of; that is over with the manifestation of the earth. A complete oblivion of the universality of consciousness took place when God’s creation ended with the earth element. With these principles of the five gross elements, the fourteen levels of creation manifested themselves: bhuloka, bhuvarloka, svarloka, maharloka, janarloka, tapoloka, and satyaloka. Fourteen levels of creation are described in the Puranas, one above the other in their subtlety and degree of manifestation of reality.

But there was no individualisation at that time. When this cosmic creation, ending with earth consciousness, diversified itself into little individuals, it became inanimate matter and organic matter such as plants, trees, shrubs, herbs. By gradual evolution, life expanded itself into the capacity to perceive, understand, and react to external conditions. The peculiarity of individual life is the capacity to react to conditions prevailing outside. We succeed in living because we are able to properly react to the external conditions of nature, and thus maintain a harmony between our individual existence and the existence of nature outside. If there is no coordination between nature’s activity and individual activity, the individual will perish. Right from the lowest creatures like crustaceans, fungi, etc., this instinct of survival continues. But what kind of survival? It is not survival as universal potential, but as isolated individuality.

The Aitareya Upanishad tells us that a catastrophe took place. Creation is a great joy when we consider that it is a systematic descent from the Almighty down to the earth level; but it is a terrible hell, actually, that broke when there was a further upside-down activity that took place after the earth level was created. The individuals are not merely vertical fractions of the Universal Existence, but topsy-turvy individuals. When we were isolated from the Cosmic Substance, we did not stand on our feet; we stood on our heads, with legs up. This is the reason why we perceive everything as topsy-turvy. The world that is prior to us and has caused us, from which we have developed our individualities, looks like an object outside us subsequent to our perceptional process, and we feel that we are the determining factors of the perceiving process and we decide the fate of the consequences of perception of an externalised world.

That the world is considered as external explains the tragedy that has taken place. We are external to the universe, to the created world. It is the world that considers us as objects of its own universal perception. It was prior; we are posterior. The world should be considered as the subject and the individual creatures should be considered as the objects, but the reverse process has taken place. We, in our isolated egotism of confirmed individuality, regard ourselves as the observers of nature, and the seers, controllers, and deciders of the fate of everything. Such is the height of egoism that has arisen in every little individual.

Every insect, every creature, wishes to maintain its individuality in the very condition in which it is. A frog would like to continue only as a frog; the desire to become an elephant will not arise in its mind. There is so much attachment to the particular form that consciousness enters into by tremendous pressure of self-assertion, which is called ego. Every tree has an ego of its own. One tree will not become another tree. They will eat each other with their anger and hunger.

From the material level of the earth plane, in a cosmical sense, the Universal split itself into individualities with a topsy-turvy perception—the right looking as left and the left looking as right—just as when we see our face in a mirror, the right looks left and the left looks right. And worse still, if we stand on the bank of the river and look at our reflection, we will find that our head, which is the highest, looks like the lowest. This is what has happened to us. Our head is the lowest, actually, though we think it is the highest. Our feet are planted on the earth, yet we cannot isolate ourselves from the earth plane. We cannot look at the world vertically. We look in an inverted manner, so that we appear to be the subjective side of perception; and the world, which is actually the Universal Subject, looks like an object.

This is the beginning of the earth potential in our own individuality gradually manifesting itself into self-consciousness, into the living regions of biological existence, plants and trees; then, slowly it rises up to animals, and then we rise above the animal level to the human level. Here we are in agreement with Darwin, and it is not completely opposed to the story of creation because there is a double edge of presentation in the scriptures, especially in the Upanishads, as I mentioned. There is a descent from divinity and an ascent from the material source. First we come down, then we go up. The going up is the process described by Darwin. The coming down is the process described in the scriptures. Both are correct. This goes up gradually, gradually, gradually, until human nature, in its crude form, manifests itself.

We have the caveman, as we call it—the crude perception. The caveman has no tools or implements with him. His conception is intensely selfish. Physical survival is the only instinct that is prevalent there; physical existence, under any cost, should continue. There is no intellectual activity. It takes ages and ages of development in order that this crude individual self-assertion of a brute nature recognises that there are other such creatures also. In an intensive form of selfishness, that selfish individual would not even be conscious that there are other individuals external to it, so much is the self-centredness. It is not merely turning a blind eye; it is unconsciousness, totally.

In the Yoga Vasishtha, seven levels of ignorance are described. There is general darkness, worse darkness, greater darkness, greatest darkness, incredible darkness, and hell itself. These are all levels of darkness. But because this hard-boiled individual, crude that he is, comes from the highest divinity, there is also a promise of higher development. We rise to a kind of social consciousness: “There are people like me.” In intensely selfish existence, social consciousness does not exist. Each one is for himself or herself, and the devil take the hindmost. Like animals in the forest, they are concerned only with themselves. The stronger eats the weaker. Might is right. It is the law of the jungle, the law of the fish; the larger fish eats the smaller fish, and the lion eats the other animals. This law of the jungle prevails when the development from the earth plane into the selfishness of organic life and animal life takes place and no social consciousness arises.

There is a kind of social consciousness even among animals. Cows go with cows; elephants go with elephants; snakes go with snakes; lions live with lions. But still, it is not that they have any kind of compassionate consideration for each other. It is a biological instinct that is manifested even in these groups of animals. It is only in the higher life of the human level that social consciousness arises. Social consciousness is a highly developed form of individuality where each individual realises that total selfishness cannot work. An individual who totally isolates himself from everything outside cannot exist. The cooperation of other individuals is necessary in order to survive.

This was realised in a greater advancement in social evolution: “I require another in order that I may survive.” Now, requiring another for the purpose of one’s own survival is not any kind of unselfish gesture or a love that is extended. It is, again, a selfish utilisation of the next person for the sake of one’s own survival. It is impossible for one to exist without the cooperation of the other. This expectation of cooperation from the other, and extending cooperation to the other from one’s own side, is not an unselfish activity, though it looks like that, because it is a survival instinct that is asserting itself. Selfishness is at the core of even social cooperation.

But then, this will not abide for a long time. Freedom is not possible by this kind of egoistic consideration of social values. Even when hundreds of people are cooperating with us and seeing to it that we survive, we are not free persons, because our survival is dependent upon the cooperation of so many other people. We are dependent, nevertheless. The individual is a servant of all those people who are responsible for his or her survival. Even a king is a servant; he is a slave, depending totally on his bodyguards, his army, and his police. By himself, he has no strength. The king is as much a slave as anybody else, considering the fact that he is totally dependent on his bodyguards, his army and slaves, etc. Independently, intrinsically, he is as good as nothing. So, selfishness, individuality, continues still, even when we reach the position of an emperor.

But this inverted consciousness of human egoism and individuality goes further still, and realises that there is an expectation on the part of other people that is of a similar nature as the expectation present in one’s own self. This is a more altruistic attitude of human nature. Here it is not a question of utilising others for one’s own benefit, but a larger charitable feeling that what I expect for myself, others also expect. Here the principle of loving one’s neighbour as one’s own self arises. We can love our neighbour so that our neighbour may take care of us and protect us. That is not unselfish activity. But ‘as thyself’ is the term. Ātmanas tu kāmāya sarvam priyam bhavati. Why should we love our neighbour? There are two ways of loving our neighbour. One is because the neighbour is a useful person for our comforts; that is not unselfishness. But another way of loving our neighbour is because he is exactly like us. There is no difference of any kind in the substance, emotion and needs between ourselves and another; I am just like that person, and that person is just like me. Here, unselfishness arises. There is someone like me, and I am not the only one that has to exist.

The conceding of the value of the existence of other people, other things, is a higher form of unselfishness arising from the lower levels where others are just tools or means to an end. To utilise the world as a means to our own individual purposes would be to convert the world into an instrument of action. But to accept that the worth of existence in one’s own self is inseparable from the worth of existence of other living creatures—other human beings, everything else—would be to gradually manifest the universal potential from which we have descended. Then, an unselfish society consciousness arises in the person. Usually, society consciousness is selfish, because no two people will cooperate with each other unless there is an ulterior motive behind it. But to realise that ulterior motive is not the reason for the cooperative activity of people, rather the reason is a universal principle operating among all individuals, is a higher development of consciousness.

Here, organic life, biological existence, exceeds its own limits and enters into a higher level of psychological existence. We are not brute animals, and not plants and trees. We are not animals; we are not cavemen; we are not selfish individuals. We are society-conscious, and are capable of recognising in the individuals of society the very same element that is present in everyone else. Thus, every human being becomes an end rather than a means. No human being can be utilised as a means to somebody else. You are as important as I am, and I am as important as you are. Neither of us is an instrument for another. Cooperative activity does not mean utilisation of one by the other. That is a poor concept of cooperation. It is the recognition of the end principle present in all beings. We are living in a kingdom of ends, not means.

Everything regards itself as very important. Nobody regards oneself as inferior. The idea of being inferior is abhorrent. Nobody likes to hear such a word. I am as important as anybody else. Especially in a democratic society, a tea shop owner considers himself to be a very important person, as important as someone with a Doctor of Literature, though there is a difference between their perceptions. The Doctor of Literature gives one vote; the shopkeeper also gives one vote. This is democracy of a peculiar type: “I am as valuable as anybody else.” Well, however we may interpret this equality of people, the consciousness of equality is a very great advancement in the development of human psychology. It is not animal psychology, not plant psychology; it is human psychology, which is a highly complicated subject. This is a result of the rise of human nature from lower levels, consequent upon the descent from God Himself. Hence, the deductive process of the coming down of particular individualities from the Universal is not in any way contradictory to the inductive level of the rise of the particular to the Universal by gradual evolution.

Therefore, the scriptures are right, and Darwin is also right. Both are correct, because they are speaking from two different points of view. Evolution and involution take place in a multitudinous variety of ways, with upward and downward currents. The movement of nature in the process of evolution is not a straight-line movement, as on a beaten track or a tarred road. It is a circular movement, where each one is everything at some particular time and in some particular context. The Yoga Vasishtha tells us that once upon a time we were Brahmas, Vishnus, Rudras, Sivas, and we can be Brahmas, Vishnus, Rudras once again at any time. We can be anything. There is nothing that prevents us from being anything at any time, in any form whatsoever, because we have descended from That which is anything, everything, and all things. Though we have inverted ourselves in the process of topsy-turvy creation, it does not prevent us from being conscious of That from where we have come.

This return process is called vama marga in Tantric language, though people condemn that word, thinking it is the left-hand path. Vama does not necessarily mean ‘left hand’. It also means ‘return process’. The Tantric doctrine of the development of consciousness from the lowest level to the higher is a highly advanced technique which modern, impure minds cannot understand. There are some philosophers of modern times, such as Sri Aurobindo, who consider Tantra as superior to the Vedas and even to the Bhagavadgita, if properly understood. But it is the worst of things if we do not understand it, because Tantra does not recognise impurity anywhere. There is no dirt or ugliness in any object. There are no ugly things, no dirty things, no impure things. They look like that because we have put them in the wrong context.

Cow dung is beautiful when it is manure in a field which grows rice and wheat, but it is very impure if it is thrown on our dining table. A rose plant in a field of rice plants is a weed, and we want to pluck it out. But a rice plant in a garden of rose plants is a weed, and we pluck it out. So, which is the weed, and which is the worthwhile plant? Which is beautiful? The beautiful and the ugly, pain and joy, all these are conditioned by certain reactions set up by the relationship of the individual to universal processes of evolution taking place. There are no pains and no joys, nothing beautiful and nothing ugly; nothing of the kind is there, but they exist when the individual is unable to properly align itself to a particular level of evolution.

We are expected to participate in the process of evolution, and not oppose it or assert our own selves. This is what Bhagavan Sri Krishna says in the Bhagavadgita. Karma yoga is participation in the work of nature, and not doing something independently. We are not asked to do anything, but participate. When we participate in the work of nature in the process of evolution, every experience becomes a happy experience. All things look beautiful. But if we do not cooperate, and assert our independence, then the compulsion inflicted upon us by the laws of upward evolution will cause the experience of the necessary or the unnecessary, the joyful and the sorrowful, the beautiful and the ugly, etc. The consequences that follow from our non-cooperation with the universal expectation of the process of evolution cause these phenomena known as beauty, ugliness, pain, happiness, etc. They do not exist by themselves; they are just reactions. Beauty is a reaction; ugliness is a reaction; joy is a reaction; pain is a reaction. By themselves, they do not exist.

Everything is pleasure, everything is beautiful, everything is wonderful, provided that we are able to consciously participate in each level of the evolutionary process of nature. This is actually the principle of yoga—unity. It is union with Reality, and union with every step of the evolutionary process. Then, the world takes care of us. This is perhaps one of the meanings that we can attribute to a great verse of the Bhagavadgita: ananyāś cintayanto māṁ ye janāḥ paryupāsate teṣāṁ nityābhiyuktānāṁ yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmy aham. The universe says, “I shall take care of you, do not worry. Cooperate with me, and think of me. Be one with me.” It may be Lord Krishna speaking, or God speaking, or nature speaking; it does not matter who speaks. The idea is, “Be one with me. I shall protect you, take care of you, provide you with everything.” But you say, “No. I am independent. I don't care.” Then, a kick comes and you see everything as ugly, everything becomes topsy-turvy, and rebirth takes place.

These are some of the phenomena of observation that arise out of our deep consideration of the historical process of the development of the religious consciousness, to be considered in various ways. If we are honest, sincere and catholic in our perceptions and acceptance, we will find that all religions tell the truth. There is no fundamentalist attitude in any religion. All religions tell some truth in some way, in some degree, in some aspect, in some facet, and we should have the charitable nature to accept what aspect it is that is presented.

A child’s blabbering also has some meaning. It is not something idiotic that he is speaking. The blabbering arises on account of one stage in the evolutionary process. Everything is to be appreciated. Sarvabhūtahite ratāḥ is the characteristic of the sage who is able to appreciate everything in its own level, not in another level. You should not compare a baby to an adult and say it is idiotic. In its own level, it is as great as an emperor; there is nothing wrong with it. But we have an idiocy in our mind that we always compare and contrast: “In comparison with this, it is no good.” Why do you compare? Take everything in its own context, in its own level, as it stands, and be one with it. Then, you will find the kingdom of ends manifests itself—or, we may say, the Kingdom of God manifests itself.